You must log in or register to comment.
“The kind with trigger discipline…”
I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.
Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By “affordable” I’m assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I’ve just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don’t have to start thinking too much. It’s really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I’m used to feeling, and since I don’t like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is “turning into these days” when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
Due to Poe’s Law, I think you really need one of these: /s
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not. I definitely would have on Reddit but figured it wouldn’t be necessary here
deleted by creator
Basically healthcare is free at point of service in the majority of the most functional and healthy societies. It’s not infinite and its rationed by need as opposed to being rationed according to who has the most money. This is ultimately a more valid solution to finite resources than our over complicated system which hands half the money to middle men in the name of managing it.
I agree, and just to be clear I was being sarcastic. I would also guess it’s way more than half the money.
Between health insurance companies, hospital administrator salaries, liability insurance for doctors, and drug patents making most medications unaffordable, I would say it’s pretty easily about 3/4 or more.
I volunteer in a free clinic in a red state that has had the Medicaid expansion for less than 10 years. It provided the absolute bare minimum healthcare to essentially everyone in need, but it still made such a huge difference in terms of patient health outcomes to just offer that bare minimum.
Now the U.S. is targeting that entire program through budget cuts, and in addition, at least in my state, private hospital oligopolies have been ramping down acceptance for months now because they seemed to know what was coming before anyone else.
The argument is that the cost of providing that bare minimum is unsustainable. Even if that were true, and the cuts weren’t actually only necessary to provide another tax break for the wealthy, there are clearly so many other places we could be making cuts to reduce the cost of healthcare, rather than to the tiny amount that goes towards actually providing the barely minimum healthcare coverage to some of the most vulnerable patient populations.
TERRORIST.
Like … all people?
Every single one
What about people we don’t like?
Why don’t we like them? Is it because they are anti-social? That’s why we have laws. Is it because they are different? Then don’t be anti-social and learn to understand them.
Seems reasonable.
So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That’s what I’m hearing here.
I think we should have a maximum wealth cap. Set it as an even 1000x the median annual household income. That is the type of money that even the most highly paid wage earners - like anesthesiologists, would struggle to amass if they worked overtime their whole careers, lived like paupers, and invested every penny they made. That would be about $80 million today. Anything above that would be taxed at 100%. And no, I don’t give a shit about your $80 million “family farm.”
But truly obscene levels of wealth? Like 10,000x median household income and above? If we had a wealth cap, and you evaded it, and secretly collected a fortune 10x the cap? A felony whose penalty is 20 to life.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs. We don’t require you to have an atomic bomb license, or only let really nice moral people own nuclear weapons. We simply don’t let individuals own nuclear weapons, as the risk of such power in a single hand is simply too great.
And yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon. Someone like Musk or Bezos, completely on their own, can absolutely cause suffering and destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb.
No one should have that type of power. Period. That power should only be obtainable through free and fair elections. We need a maximum wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Having a billion dollars should be absurd as owning your own nuclear bomb.
I wish I could upvote this about a dozen times well said.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs […] and yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon.
Damn that is very well put. I thought I knew where you were going with that analogy – like that there are just some things we don’t allow people to have. But the comparison of the power of a nuclear bomb and 11 digit wealth is really really good.
No matter what you do with that kind of wealth, it is a level of force that should not be wielded without the consent of the people it will affect.
Idk. The kind where I believe that every adult over 18 should be given 80m2 by the government. Apartment, office space, storage space, workshop, lab, whatever.
I believe that you shouldn’t need to worry about a place to live at the bare minimum, and I believe that not having space for people to use and experiment with is one of the main hindrances of economic development (development, not “growth”)
You know those means of production?
Well I have an idea…
What kind am I?
Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.
I’m in-between. I’m caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.
I wish there was a test.
Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual “if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here’s a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff.”
We’d still have Home and Local and All, but it’d be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.
I don’t think anyone knows what socialism is.
Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
While I am totally in the “bind all and protect all” camp and really against the “in group protect, out group rules” and I think conservatism is often in practice “protect me and rule others”, I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of “in group protect, out group bind”.
Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don’t like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. “progressive” capitalists to claim that they aren’t conservative and therefore not “in group protect, out group bind”.
I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
Yes, Wilhoit, if I’m understanding his treatise correctly, addressed this point:
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
The corollary label could be “Anti-Establishment”. Perhaps, “Anti-Authoritarian”.
I don’t know what the best term is, but I fairly certain conservatism is probably one of the worst. I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
On this, I agree.
However, I propose that the “Anti-Conservative” label, with all of its flaws, has more utility in presenting its economic and political implications within the admittedly linguistically absurd political discourse in my country (U.S.A.).
I think, there, we have a disagreement. To me, it would sound like you reject the republicans specifically in a us political discussion, a position that I wouldn’t be interested exploring, because of how strong the tribalism in us politics is. I would just assume that you are supporting the democrats. While with the understanding of the conversation, I would assume you aren’t supportive of any of the us political party and vote for the least bad option.
In other words, I wouldn’t want to explore your political position if you use that term as I would assume I understood. Consequently I would misunderstand your position. And I think others would do the same.
If someone would identify as a conservative, they wouldn’t take you seriously anymore, as they would understand it that you reject them, even tho in practice they would agree with you on a lot of stuff and you aren’t necessarily rejecting them.
😅 My apologies, I’ve been re-reading this reply many times and I’m not following your argument against the utility of using the “Anti-Conservative” label for myself if someone asks what is my political position (within the United States)?
Is your thesis that “Anti-conservative” is not specific enough?
My apologies!
For a conservative™ (the way most people use the word), hearing “anti-conservative”, probably makes them reject you immediately as from their pov, you reject them.
For a left wing person, hearing “anti-conservative” probably makes them assume that you talk about conservative™ and not conservative as you mean it.
So in both cases, you don’t have the conversation that you want if you want to promote your political stance, as you kinda encourage them to not engage with your political stance.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
I hope this isn’t about leftists refusing to support biden/kamala in the US.
You didn’t have to support them. You just had to use your brain and choose the lesser of two evils. Like which one of these people is more likely to illegally deport me for exercising my first amendment rights? I think you’ll find the answer to that question soon.
a vote is an offering of “support” by it’s very nature.
The problem with “lesser of two evils” was that it traps you in short-term thinking.
In 2020, the lesser of two evils would have actually been Donald Trump. Looking back with 20/20 vision, it’s unambiguously clear that between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, voting for Donald Trump in 2020 would have been, on the whole, a better outcome for the country. Voting lesser of two evils in the short term gave us the worst long-term outcome.
How can this be? Because Biden winning in 2020 guaranteed that Trump would win in 2024. Biden was never going to hold Trump accountable. He was never going to push through meaningful reforms that could prevent a second Trump term. Every vote for Biden in 2020 was a vote for a Trump 2024 presidency. And I knew this at the time, and held my nose and voted for Biden anyway.
And Trump winning in 2024 is far worse for the country than Trump winning an election in 2020. The first Trump term was incredibly disorganized. They didn’t know how to govern. They had four years out of power to figure out what went wrong and how to do it right a second time. If Trump had won in 2020, then he wouldn’t have come in on a second wave, with complete control of government and Project 2024 and its organization behind him. Trump in 2024 is vastly, vastly more dangerous than a second Trump term in 2020 would have been.
But “lesser of two evils” is meant to be a thought-terminating command. We’re not supposed to ask what lesser evil we’re supposed to consider. Are we only supposed to look at the immediate evil, or the long-term evil? Because by default, just using “lesser of two evils” simply causes you to myopically focus on only the election in front of you.
Again, lesser of two evils gave us this outcome. We would have been far, far better off now if the liberal third of voters in 2020 just refused to vote for Biden. Because again, a Biden victory in 2020 guaranteed a Trump victory in 2024. And Trump in 2024 is a lot worse than Trump in 2020 would have been.
Before reflexively recommending people vote for lesser of two evils, you should first ask, “have my previous judgments of the lesser evil actually been correct?”
That’s a totally fair take, but it’s all ridden with hindsight bias. Trump has always been a wild card. I suspect he doesn’t know what he’s doing at this point. There was no telling we lose both houses and have the worst possible cabinet members sworn in.
If we were just gonna vote the lesser of two evils than I still stand by my opinion that I would’ve rather voted for Joe Biden‘s corpse held up by his cabinet in 2024. I would’ve rather had Kamala step up to president after he passed.
Instead, we pretended like Joe Biden had dementia for four years and then actually elected an old man with dementia
Or maybe support someone who isn’t one of the two evils
Yes, like good old Jill Stein. Sponsored by Russian disinformation. Brought you Donald Trump by a margin of the vote. Very wise may you always waste your vote.
I keep doing this hoping the centrists will get the message and enact PR or else risk losing to the Big Bad which threatens us all. But so far I’ve been disappointed…
I only have my one measly little vote. They determine the entire platform and what policies get proposed. It’s so unfair. I just want to vote for the representative who actually represents me without risking fucking feudalism. I’m not even asking for direct democracy here…
Our (U.S.A.) best option for that in recent history was Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.
Thats still one of the two parties
Bernie is certainly a diamond in the rough - but don’t ignore that rough.
He is an independent as a Senator. But you’re correct in that he ran as a Democrat in 2016.
Here you are protecting conservatives that have a vested interest in the genocide of palestinians.
Here you are protecting conservatives by attacking and dividing the liberals. Focusing on a country you’ve never been within 2,000 miles of while the conservatives turn us into Palestine. Enjoy bitching while you can. We’ve already seen the pro Palestine kids are the first ones on the to go list. So the conservatives are actually helping us here in the long run. Enemy of my enemy is my friend type shit.
Dude, I’m just waiting for this actual genocide to happen so we can stop talking about it. Anyone who’s wage a genocide for 100 years and not accomplished the goal of genocide…… I’m guessing in 100 years your brain dead grandchildren’s will still be crying about “genocide”. After 200 years of being waging a genocide against a non peer neighbor at what point do we decide it’s just a war used by the people in power to stay in power.
You will never get me to Care about that fucking conflict because I’ve been watching it happen for 30 fucking years. You’ve been watching it for a year.
the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
it’s a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason “the law” doesn’t protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I will concede that this clarification makes sense if one regards capitalism and conservatism as de facto interchangeable.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
So as someone who doesn’t actually want to address the systemic mass inequalities, because it might require something other than voting, got it.
What a vapid and obtuse thing to say.
What other actions do you want me to take, other than organizing and voting?
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
On the latter, I am not a combat veteran. I wouldn’t know where to begin, and I’m not inclined to throw my life away easily.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
Start by being honest with yourself about what the problem is. That’s why I raise the point that the political economy is at fault and won’t be fixed by simply purging the people you see as engaging in wrongthink. Personally I organize with like-minded people and do direct actions.
The original work you quote talked a tough game:
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh.
which you immediately walked back:
within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
If you really think that out-groups should not be getting ruled over by in-groups, then you really need to recognize that US hegemony has been the most powerful ‘in-group’ in history. Workers in America get paid more not because their work is more valuable but because money can flow freely over borders while people cannot. Labor aristocrats are the workers who are given a small share of the spoils from the rest of the world in exchange for their political inaction. Capitalism is wildly authoritarian and much of what you take for granted as ‘constraints of US political discourse’ are predicated on the US’s hegemonic role within that system.
This entire line of argument seems like you’re trying to pose as if you’re maximally defiant against the status quo, but you also want to continue being anti-communist.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Revolutionary organizing has been far more effective, historically speaking.
deleted by creator
The kind that got chucked off reddit for being mean to Trump, Musk and Netanyahu.
I’m a noob leftist. Maybe a reformed (reforming?) liberal. I am anticapitalist.
I don’t think a 19th century European necessarily devised the perfect economic system. Maybe we don’t have to be obliged to label ourselves by which 19th century European we agree with the most. There are a lot of people smarter than me who know more than me who disagree with each other, I don’t know if we can move society in my lifetime enough that the difference between anarchism and communism will make a huge public policy difference. I’m more concerned with stopping fascism and working for universal healthcare.
Get your finger out of the trigger guard.
To be fair, if you saw the movie, he was definitely ready to pull that trigger within the next milliseconds. But yeah shouldn’t be pointing in the air without any trigger discipline
“You leftists sure are a contentious people”
yeah I’m a centrist:
flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
